PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ben Balzer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 22 May 2000 19:38:45 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (85 lines)
Eric,
Potatoes are Not paleo. Most people are going for a low-carb paleo diet,
especially if they wish to lose weight (as it gives lower insulin levels
therefore assisting fat burning), but it is quite OK to have a normal carb
paleo diet and indeed the original paleo diets of Boyd Eaton etc were fairly
high in carbs, but NEVER potatoes.
Above all, paleo diet is about low levels of toxins or antinutrients (same
thing). Potatoes are very high in the types of antinutrients found in wheat
and beans (enzyme blockers, lectins) which are mostly destroyed by heat, but
they also contain glycoalkaloids (GA) eg solenine that ARE NOT affected by
heat, even deep frying. Yes, solanine gets very high in bruised, cut or
green potatoes. There are a least 30 medically proven cases of people dying
from eating raw potato, according to Loren Cordain. So, of grain, beans,
potatoes, potatoes are the most toxic, especially after cooking, IMHO. (that
just leaves dairy products and sugar from Ray's hit list (and salt should be
on that list too)).
POTATOES ARE THE WORST POSSIBLE CHEAT on a paleodiet. They are the poxiest
vegetable of all- and are so marginal they barely rate as edible even after
cooking. The only vegetable I know of that is worse is the chickling pea
that certain peoples eat if they're near starvation, and causes lathyrism, a
devastating neurological illness. (not chick pea). Hey, but then they cook
the potatoes in high-trans-fat oils- what a health disaster! Potatoes also
have a high glycemic index.
Rice seems fairly low in toxins (but this may be because of a lack of
research), has a very high glycemic index.
Now, it you want to eat carbs, eat more root vegetables- beets, carrots,
turnips, etc. {Sweet potatoes seem OK but their high carbs are discouraged
if you want to lose weight. I used to eat heaps of them but reading Loren
Cordain has turned me off them (I need to lose more weight)}, eat more other
veges- leaf veges, fruit veges (pumpkin, squash etc). Virtually all are low
GI which will help your sugar.
So, the point is (besides hating potatoes), don't confuse low carb with
paleo. Although all banned foods are high in carbs, this does not mean that
carbs are bad (it means that carbs plus toxins is bad). Remember, Neolithic
foods are just cheap tummy filler that people came up with when times were
tough. They are marginal, second-class foods that aren't specified in our
genome. Paleo foods are all first class foods that are specified in our
genome and therefore are easily processed (without causing diabetes) give us
the full range of micronutrients and, above all, are lacking in toxins.
Ben Balzer

Date:    Sun, 21 May 2000 21:21:15 -0700
From:    Eric Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Trans fats / FrankenFats & health

Great note, Ben. Responding to Ken's valuable reminder,
I finally got the title right -- or at least better.
I am now looking forward to reading Simopoulos' book.
Your analysis of the danger is quite interesting.

BTW: Thanks for reminding me that the term I was looking
for was "phospholipids". I believe my earlier message I
used a completely erroneous term. Thanks for overlooking it.

In my modified version of the PaleoPlan, I allow rice and
potatoes in reasonable amounts as side dishes -- although
I find myself moving away from them rather easily, after
only a week. The effect of that modification is to
eliminate *refined* carbohydrates from my diet -- bread,
cake, cookies, tortillas, muffins, bagels, etc.

Thinking about it, that strategy has accomplished several
important goals that would help to account for losing
4lbs in a week, with pretty much no desire to eat them.
(Usually, when you cut out things, you wind up craving
them more strongly than ever. But on this diet, I don't
miss what I've cut out at *all*.)

To get back to the point, cutting out refined carbs has
had the effect of:
  1) Completely avoiding the partially hydrogenated poisons
     that are present in most of the refined-carb "food"
     products.

  2) Made me fill up on vegetables instead of bread and
     things -- high-fiber foods that have regulated blood
     sugar very, very nicely, thank you very much.

  3) Put the meals into the 40-30-30 "Zone" range. (In
     theory, you can eat any kind of carbs. But when you
     do the math, you wind up needing to balance that
     candy bar with a pound of bologna -- so eliminating
     refined carbs is the only practical way to stay in
     "the zone".

ATOM RSS1 RSS2